Advertisement

Learning Leadership by Doing—‘Route for Renewal©’ Case Study

  • Petri Virtanen
  • Marika TammeaidEmail author
Chapter
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

‘I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think’ is a proverb from Socrates which is also a very good motto for designing training for a VUCA-world. It is also something that is rather different from the traditional approach to leadership training which continues to support the rather naive idea that there is a knowledge-based solution to every problem, preferably provided by some researcher or external expert. The key issue in facing an unknown future and complex challenges is to realise that there are no ready or simple answers for how to think, or how to take action. From the perspective of learning, listening to lectures does not necessarily open new horizons for thought nor does it generate new kinds of action. In practice, solutions and real changes arise when knowledge, skills and experience are combined in a manner that is different from how this has been done before. This requires bringing knowledge to a personal level and the interactive building of understanding. It also calls for the taking of a step away from the temptation to draw quick conclusions from contradictory opinions or facts and seeing bewilderment as a fruitful condition. Long-term training provides an ideal platform to learn when it is designed in such a way that it develops the ability to think and seek solutions together. When the training is not delivered from an expert position, but instead as an open-ended dialogue with and between the participants, it also creates a great opportunity to practise all the important meta-skills discussed in Chap.  5. In this chapter, we describe in detail how the Route for Renewal© training programme (2016–2018) was designed and conducted in Finland by the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra. The main aim of the leadership training was to precipitate a systemic change in terms of leadership for the 2020s within the Finnish Central Government. Eight specific learning activities are described in detail, as well as the solutions-focused paradigm of change and facilitation.

References

  1. Bannik F, Jackson PZ (2011) Positive psychology and solution focus. Interact J Solution Focus Organ 3(1):8–20Google Scholar
  2. Bushe GR (1998) Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry. In: 18th presentation at annual world congress of organization development, Dublin, 14–18 July 1998Google Scholar
  3. Carless D (2007) Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications. J Innov Educ Teach Int 44(1):57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cimino JJ Jr (2016) From stone to stone across the unknown sea. Creative Leaps International (available at http://creativeleaps.org/resources/articles, accessed on 30.7.2019)
  5. Clarke J (2006) Turning clients into customers for change—the art of platform building. In: Lueger G, Korn H-P (eds) Solution-focused management. Rainer Hampp Verlag, Berlin, pp 357–362Google Scholar
  6. Clarke J (2012) Memorable workshops: adding variety to our sessions. Interact J Solution Focus Organ 4(1):28–40Google Scholar
  7. Cooperrider D, Whitney D (2006) The change handbook. Appreciative inquiry: a positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Cotton J (2010) Question utilization in solution-focused brief therapy: a recursive frame analysis of Insoo Kim Berg’s solution talk. Qual Rep 15(1):18–36Google Scholar
  9. Cronen EC, Lang P, Lang S (2009) Circular questions and coordinated management of meaning theory. Human systems. J Ther Consultation Training 20(1):7–34Google Scholar
  10. de Bono E (1985) Six thinking hats. Little Brown and Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dierolf K (2012) Is SF a systemic approach? Interact J Solution Focus Organ 4(4):10–25Google Scholar
  12. Dweck C (2006) Mindset: the new psychology of success. Random house, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham T (2018) How to design for scale: lessons for ambitious new interventions: many programs are developed with features that make them inherently difficult to scale up. Apolitical. https://apolitical.co/solution_article/how-to-design-for-scale/, accessed on 30.7.2019
  14. Hankovszky K, Hirchburger F, Meier D, Szabó P, von Bidder S (2012) Yet another paradigm shift: some congruent ideas about SF Training. Interact J Solution Focus Organ 4(1):21–27Google Scholar
  15. Harré R (1996) The rediscovery of the human mind. In: Kim (ed) Proceedings of the 50th anniversary conference of the Korean Psychological Association, Psychology dept, Chung-ang University, Seoul, Korea. Available at http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/virtual/korea.htm. Accessed on 15.7.2019
  16. Kennedy F, Carroll B, Francoeur F (2013) Mindset not skill set: evaluating in new paradigms of leadership development. In: Advances in developing human resources vol 15, issues 1. SAGE Publications, pp 10–26Google Scholar
  17. Lang PW, Little M, Cronen V (1990) The systemic professional domains of action and the question of neutrality. Hum Syst J Syst Consultation Manag 1(1):39–55Google Scholar
  18. Linley A (2008) From average to A+. Realising strengths in yourself and others. Capp Press, CoventryGoogle Scholar
  19. Lonka K (2018) Phenomenal learning from Finland. Edita, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  20. McKergow M, Bailey H (2014) Host: six new ROLES of engagement for teams, organizations, communities and movements. Solution books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. McKergow M, Clarke J (2007) Solutions focus working: 80 real life lessons for successful organizational change. Solutions Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Miksits M (2014) Imagining organizational futures: towards a systemic constructionist practice perspective. Professional doctorate thesis on Systemic Practice, University of Bedfordshire, BedfordshireGoogle Scholar
  23. Mueller PA, Oppenheimer DM (2014) The pen is mightier than the keyboard: advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science OnlineFirst. Available at: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.udel.edu/dist/6/132/files/2010/11/Psychological-Science-2014-Mueller-0956797614524581-1u0h0yu.pdf. Accessed on 5.7.2019
  24. Norling U (2015) The story behind “effects of solutions focused leadership training on productivity and behavior”. J Solution Focus Organ 7(1):44–77Google Scholar
  25. Peschl MF (2007) Triple-loop learning as foundation for profound change, individual cultivation, and radical innovation: Construction processes beyond scientific and rational knowledge. Constructivist Found 2(2–3):136–145Google Scholar
  26. Purokuru V (2016) Taiteen menetelmät kehittämisessä ja tutkimuksessa. Publication of the Committee for the Future of the Parliament of Finland, Helsinki, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  27. Romme AGL, Witteloostuijn A (1999) Circular organizing and triple loop learning. J Organ Change Manag 12(5):439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A (2010) On meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Res Organ Behav 30(4):91–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salonen M (2015) Systeeminen johtaminen julkisella sektorilla. City of Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  30. Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross RB, Smith BJ (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Doubleday Verso, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Shotter J (2008) Dialogism and polyphony in organizing theorizing in organization studies: action guiding anticipations and the continuous creation of novelty. Organ Stud 29(4):501–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sitra (2018) Phenomenon-based public administration: discussion paper on reforming the government’s operating practices. Sitra Working paper. Available at www.sitra.fi. Accessed on 4.6.2019
  33. Stenvall J, Virtanen P (2017) Intelligent public organizations? Pub Organ Rev 17(2):195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sundman P, Johansson B (2012) Practical ideas for stimulating quality in training. J Solution Focus Organ 4(1):8–20Google Scholar
  35. Szabó P (2009) Coaching reloaded—assumptions of a brief coach in interaction. J Solution Focus Organ 1(2):26–40Google Scholar
  36. Tammeaid M (2012) Photography—a powerful tool in solution focused use in interaction. J Solution Focus Organ 4(2):41–47Google Scholar
  37. Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A (2018) A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Policy Soc. Available at  https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1497933. Accessed on 6.8.2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Virtanen P, Stenvall J (2018) Intelligent health policy. Theory, concept and practice. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Visser C, Schlundt Bodien G (2009) Supporting Client’s solutions building and expectations of beneficial change. Interact J Solution Focus Organ 1(2):9–25Google Scholar
  40. Zeig KZ, Muinon MM (1999) Milton H. Erikson. Key figures in counselling and psychotherapy. Sage, p 123Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITLA FoundationHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University of VaasaVaasaFinland

Personalised recommendations